Hacker News Reader

Comment by culopatin | Hacker News Reader

People need to believe that they can change the situation they are in. They need to think of what they are capable of working on and feel like other people will join them to do good, not to fuck with them.

Things as simple as not dumping trash outside of where you live. Or getting together with your neighbors to clean up your block to make it look nice.

Helping each other is no longer a thing in Argentina from what I can see. Everyone is so used to having to protect everything they have that they have isolated themselves in their pockets and everyone else can go fuck themselves. You can’t get up and go work like that.

I think Argentina needs a social leader that will make them think this way.

View on HN

This describe much of the western world at this snapshot in time, if to differing degrees.

In Canada for example, it seems many people are treating real estate like the lady in the story treats cans of tuna: buy as much as you can afford. And, our government seems similarly disinterested in the problem.

It's very tempting to conclude that this is all by design (this sentiment is picking up a lot of steam in Canada, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is partially true), but I think what's more realistic is that this is simply emergence in action: a system such as the one we live in (Earth, humanity, etc) combined with particular forms of governance (representative democracy) eventually produces the phenomenon we are now seeing more or less globally: concentration of wealth and power, at a constantly increasing rate.

I think it's possible for leadership to change this, but I do not personally believe that representative democracy is necessarily capable of discovering such a leader and allowing them to advance through the ranks. Perhaps in anomalous situations someone could slip through, but my intuition is that anyone with righteous populist goals (maximizing well being for all people) would make it through the many sophisticated filters that exist, one of the main ones being the media.

The actual reason why this happens is that when someone controls the money supply, they will eventually start creating more money for their own benefit, or the benefit of those who vote for them. It's almost as whole societies get high on 'free money', while stripping capital away from productive activities. This has always happened in human history, and it's the actual reason for almost all societal collapses and wars. Centralized monetary systems have this inherent flaw, and it can't be fixed. The only solution for this is Bitcoin, which is incorruptible and can't be inflated by anyone.

Agreed, but if we had a more sophisticated form of democracy, we could do things like enforce transparency and documentation (and therefore honesty)....as it is, I think it is safe to assume that the various people in positions of power are happy to coordinate their talking points and documentation to minimize personal harm when something goes wrong.

It's bizarre how carefully we design relatively minor systems on this planet, but arguably the most important system of them all is a giant mess of bugs...and hardly anyone seems to notice or care.

Well, the issue is that there can't be real democracy when money is cheap. Whoever promises the most stimmies will always win. There are no hard limits on bad decisions. Real politics and real democracy starts when there is no cheap money and people have to make actual decisions and compromises. After that, maybe all the governance structures and methods will face pressure to innovate.

I believe a system could be designed that would be resilient to these and other problems. If we don't even try, we will never know what is possible.

I think this is just late stage capitalism. The ideology will have to die off for this momentum to stop.

South Africa is on my watch list for a failing state. Not sure if Argentinians situation could be improved by emulating it. This is what happens 'when money dies'. I worry that there is now a false nostalgia,a simulacrum, for communism without an understanding of the damage it does. In Eastern Europe I unexpectedly bore witness to the scars left on the human psyche from those who lived it. Even long removed from it they are still very damaged by it. There is no analog in the west so it is hard to explain, it's like chunks of their soul were removed. Their specter has haunted me ever since. What's happening in Argentina was entirely predictable and unfortunate.

Is there any hope? That is, are there any people currently in Argentinian politics who might be credible agents of change?

Not really. There are new libertarian congressmen making waves (Javier Milei and Jose Luis Espert), by demanding taxes be lowered and public spending reduced as people can't afford to live anymore (Argentina spends waaaay more than it makes, hence inflation and debt), but they are still small parties in the national scale.

The big ones (Peronismo, which is a national socialist fascist leftist communist party (yes, it's weird, but it's that), and Cambiemos, which is Peronismo light mostly) are more or less in accordance to keep the status quo as politicians and public employees like how life is.

>socialist fascist leftist communist

It's not that weird. "Socialist", " communist", and "leftist" all describe political affiliation, while "fascist" is variously pejorative or a scare word deriving from "fasces", Latin for, roughly, " bundle of sticks", a political motif that was widespread and long-lasting (see the US mercury dime).

All that to say that "fascist" mostly lacks descriptive power except in its association with totalitarianism, which in turn is consistent with communism.

Peron was a big fan of Mussolini and Hitler, and a lot of his party actions (Peronism) are based on what they did, so yeah, fascist is pretty accurate here.

Doesn't sound weird at all. They all share a collectivist ideology, which requires some degree of authoritarianism to operate. It's the elevation of the state or the collective over the individual and they differ only in their degree and implementation.

Hayek's dedication in The Road to Serfdom is to "socialists of all parties". He does this purposely to demonstrate that centralized control comes in many forms, no matter what it may be called.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com